Category talk:Artifacts
Which format should we keep and build on? The new one with sections and a table of contents. The old one with the chart and less clutter. I like the new format for artifacts since they do have more information than can be easily shown on a table. Not sure about this format for the other pages (demon powers, magic spells, etc.) just yet, but this is good. The main reason I removed the redirects was because I didn't see any point to having something posted (the helpfile) that then no one would see. If the helpfile information was folded into a big comprehensive layout like this, then I would see the reasoning behind putting redirects on otherwise blank pages. VoidBorn 18:26, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Personally, I think that this new format is way more badass, simply because it looks more professional and detailed than the previous format, but that's just me. I'm all for more, if not all, of the pages being like this, because I agree that it's pretty fucking lame to have helpfiles have their own separate pages all over the wiki when they can just be put onto the same page. I'd rather have more quality per page than a bunch of pages with nothing on them. Lostaros 2.0 19:14, October 1, 2010 (UTC) I moved your comment to the top because I couldn't decide if I was going to post under it or just at the top to respond to it since we were already moving in that direction. It's confusing! I don't mind which direction we move in, but it should be consistent so we can read what people are writing here. Anyhow, the problem I see with having a lot of little articles is that the information is all spread out without any specific reason. If an article is mostly summary and there's really a lot to write on the topic, it makes sense to split it off as a separate page, but when each page is a paragraph or less and partly made of redundant information that you're presenting on the initial page, I think it's kind of disorganized. I like tables and charts a bunch too, honestly. They can be used to show a great deal of information inf a very simple and easy to compare way plus they're normally very friendly to edit in a real spreadsheet. Unfortunately, because these tables aren't in something as robust as excel or calc, that benefit is mostly lost. Plain text is much easier to edit than constructing tables here, especially with the rich text editor which does crazy and bloaty things sometimes. Specifically with this page though, I think there's more information that needs to be presented in a written out format than can be easily expressed when contained to a smaller cell. Syntaxes and descriptions, for example. Too, I don't think there's much other information to be gathered. My table was initially made up of just a handful of categories that turned out to be largely unnecessary. The cost is basically the only thing that I think is data that is appropriate to table in most cases. With all that said, at the moment, the format is still essentially a bunch of tables because they're helpful in formating and positioning paragraphs within a section. If, for example, someone decided that there was some other attribute of each artifact that was simple and data like, they could add an additional cell to each table to represent it easy. The type and wear location is basically just an example of that since I don't think it's terribly necessary. All those are pretty self explanatory, especially since they're grouped into rings, amulets, and so on. --Amatsuka 22:17, September 30, 2010 (UTC) Honestly I think I liked the chart better. I don't know, I just love charts/tables and are visually more appealing than this. I am not sure having a bunch of helpfiles is really necessarily a bad thing either. Charts show a quick overview, and then if you want more details you can look at the helpfile. Either way, I'll leave this page alone if everyone else prefers it this way. - RulerofSaturn 16:39, September 30, 2010 (UTC) I think I've overused charts all over the site though and that this material in particular could be summarized in a better way without one. Charts seem a lot easier to get people to fill details into in general, I think, but I think artifacts would benefit from the section layout more than something like skills or spells because there's history to go along with each as well as kind of unique mechanics with some of them. It should remove the need to have all the specific helpfiles to begin with. I'll try to make up a page to show you what I mean soon. --Amatsuka 01:05, September 30, 2010 (UTC) *Update* There, like that. Ah, sorry about not explaining myself! Still getting used to the wiki layout. I removed the redirects because they made getting to the helpfiles rather difficult. I do really like the chart and summarizing the important information that way. I grouped the artifact helpfiles with the Artifact category so there was a link to the chart, and then added a link to it in the Help Artifacts page as well. I think the Category pages are good places for these kinds of tables, since they give you a general overview of the specific helpfiles, which you can then have a look at for more specific information. That's my thought process anyway, and welcome criticisms/suggestions/advice/alternatives! VoidBorn 00:06, September 30, 2010 (UTC) I don't really know why the redirects were removed, but the chart, while kind of useful, was meant to be temporary. I'll try to like, document what I'm thinking better from now on because there's really no way for anyone to have known that. I think instead, having each artifact as a separate section while incorporating both the information from the helpfiles and the information gathered via the chart will help us consolidate all the useful information onto one page. The upgrade cost can probably be removed per artifact and just stated as a general rule since it seems to be 1/5th of the cost of the artifact per level to a total of twice the cost of the artifact at level 10. --Amatsuka 05:15, September 29, 2010 (UTC)